<p>So how do you guys think that Harvard’s reinstituted early action program will influence us waitlisters?</p>
<p>Apparently, they expect a ridiculously high yield rate thanks to it, which leads me to believe that it would be harder for us to get off the wait list. Also, the low number of people they took off the waitlist last year (10-15 people out of like 1000+) leads me to believe that there’s not much hope for us :p.</p>
<p>^#Scatman, although this is merely my surmise ant just based upon watching this for a few years, I think this maybe–just maybe–the best year for WL in a while. I have a hard time believing that Fitzsimmons’ 95% yield on SCEAs will hold up-- it will be very high–maybe even 90% but losing only 5% when most of these kids got into YPSM and top LACs? Esp when you factor in financial aid differences (some will get more at Harvard some less-- always varies…). Even Fitzsimmons hinted that they sort of plan on taking 100-150 off the wait list-- I think that MAY–just MAY–be conservative on his part. Anyway you will know in early May once the yield data comes out. Last year it was a bit above 77%.</p>
<p>Etondad, my kid’s on the waitlist, and I had been speculating along the same lines as you. In fact, their press release says that they’re not sure how this will play out. You mention some stats, but do you know the full breakdown in terms of how many accepted EA, how many RD, (is the 2032 for both EA and RD?), class size and the assumed yield for EA and RD? I have read that Harvard shoots to take 50-125 from its waitlist, and it would be interesting to see how that fits with these numbers.</p>
<p>[2,032</a> admitted to Class of ?16 | Harvard Gazette](<a href=“http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/2032-admitted-to-class-of-16/]2,032”>2,032 admitted to Class of ’16 – Harvard Gazette)</p>
<p>How do pepole even get on waitlists!! I think I musta wrote real good essays, cause I haven’t been wait listed anywhere. I’m also realizing that SATs are useless. Harvard and other schools don’t even care. I mean my scores was pretty good (nabbed something like a 1750), so I wasn’t surprised when I got in…if any of ya want I’ll take a look at your essays. I’m real good at writing and creative stuff…always have the right vision.</p>
<p>They don’t release WL numbers although it kinda leaks out if I remember from years past. I was struck in the article Fitzsimmons gave to the Crim about how they wouldn’t mind taking a number from the list and that in the recent past they have taken up to 200 (I never remember he ever using that number before…) and that they have been particularly conservative in their admits this year bc of the yield uncertainty-- (less applications, yet even less number of admits for a lower admit rate–around 200 less than last year.)</p>
<p>All that leads me to speculate that the WL will be active–and that kids on it have a shot, not merely a sure slow death.</p>
<p>@Etondad and @AR1130, I think that you guys might be a little too optimistic about the WL this year. I still believe that it will be a worse year than in recent memory (perhaps worse than last year’s 10-15), and the math seems to support that:</p>
<p>Let’s be conservative (no point in false hope, right? haha):</p>
<p>772 students from a 2032 student body were admitted early, and the rest were obviously admitted RD. Assuming a yield rate of 97% for Early and 80% (slightly higher than last year) for Regular, you get a weighted total average of 86.5%. This is almost TEN points higher than last year’s 77%, not quite enough to offset the 5.9% decrease in acceptances. Using this yield rate, you get a class size of 1758, already far higher than last year’s 1664-- meaning bad news for us WLers.</p>
<p>Even using more liberal yield estimates of 92% for EA (Fitzsimmon’s lower estimate) and 79% (no matter what, I think RD yield will increase beyond last year’s 77% thanks to improving economic decisions and the fact that only like 3% of the presumably most dedicated applicants were accepted from this pool), we get a total yield of 84%. This translates into a size of 1706, still far higher than last years’ class.</p>
<p>I hate to be such a pessimist, but I really don’t think this is a good year to be on the WL. I wish both of your children good luck on the WL process, but I wouldn’t hope for more than 15 out of the 1000+ WLers being accepted.</p>
<p>Though I do agree that people may be a little too optimistic about the wait-list (I don’t believe that hundred students will get off), I believe your conservative-liberal estimates are all-out a little too conservative.</p>
<p>According to your conservative estimates, only about 20 out of 772 early action admits will decline Harvard’s offer of admission. I find that strangely hard to believe. I’m sure that as you approach the upper limits, there will be a lot more variables to consider than just the 15% EA rule. Also, an overall yield of 87% is unprecedented. The reinstatement of EA shouldn’t make too much of a difference, as many people who were admitted EA and have chosen to matriculate would have been admitted anyway during the regular decision round. A similar argument goes for your “liberal” estimate of 84%, still unprecedented, even before Harvard’s decision to forego early action.</p>
<p>You raise some very valid points, but I did use the expected numbers given by Harvard’s Dean of Admissions.</p>
<p>Where did you find these expected numbers? I hope to all that those aren’t the numbers, or else Harvard would definitely be too liberal in their admissions as opposed to previous years. If you are referring to the 97 to 98 percent rate that was stated in that article, that rate is actually the graduation rate, not the yield rate.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I got it from the Crimson… Fitzsimmons predicted 92-97% yield rate for EA, and the other assumptions I made in my calculations quite frankly weren’t a huge leap (especially the 79-80% RD yield rate). I am not very optimistic. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/27/three-percent-admission-2016/[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/3/27/three-percent-admission-2016/</a></p>
<p>I think the WL will have smal movement this year because they have a good idea how many from the EA will matriculate. If you notice in the Crimson article, they have offered admission to a smaller number of URMs. This does not mean that their percentage in the class wil decrease but that they accepted more during EA and are sure they are going to enroll. For RD they accepted more Asians which shows they anticipate more Asians to choose another school over Harvard. That means they might have a better chance in the WL. I see the WL smaller this year as well and legacy (and I mean primary and generational legacy with $$$) will snatch the few openings. I enjoy that people focus on the higher number and not on the lowest number mentioned in the article-one year they accepted zero, nada from the WL.</p>
<p>Using 1675 spots in the class I made an excel program:</p>
<p>EA yield 95%
RD yield 75%
waitlisted spots: -3</p>
<p>EA yield 87%
RD yield 78%
waitlisted spots: 21</p>
<p>EA yield 85%
RD yield 75%
waitlisted spots: 74</p>
<p>I feel like the second option will be the most accurate. Still, ~20 spots is almost nothing, especially because of plausible rumors that many legacies and big donors are backdoor’ed into Harvard in this stage…</p>
<p>Given that of the “n” of SCEA students I know (6) 3 are going elsewhere–just my tiny sample unless it is very off from the typical sample and there is no reason why it would be so-- suggests that far larger than 20 will decline. The reasoning that a higher percentage will accept Harvard because of improving economic conditions is actually the reserve-- given that Harvard, even during the worst days of the recession did not withdraw the loan free process or increase the income thresholds, Harvard stood as a better place to attend for people with limited means…however as the economy improves both the dependence upon financial aid is reduced and more families will have incomes above Harvard’s “free” threshold making Harvard’s FA packages no longer uniquely excellent.</p>
<p>Harvard has accepted none or very few from the WL, but those years are correlated actually with worsening economic times. Given that they have had 200 from the WL–Fitzsimmon’s quote–in recent years, there would have to be a very large distort to make a nearly zero WL given that they have reduced their acceptances by almost 200 in order to deal with what they except will be the mid 90% SCEA yield.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is merely mental playing, the numbers will be clear enough by May 1–and will not rely upon statistical or historical analysis. So bottom line, you want Harvard-- stay on, you want to move on with your life, say no to the WL. Just don’t place your all your hopes and dreams in the WL and be excited where you have been accepted. </p>
<p>As they say in the movies–“all will be revealed soon…”</p>
<p>If you have access to the school’s naviance profile then you know whether this is typical for the school or not. I was looking at a public school in NE with 9 accepted, 3 EA, 5 overall decided to enroll (2 were from the EA) and it corresponds with last year 14 accepted 9 enrolled, and 2009 11 accepted 7 enrolled. Harvard knows very well how to increase their yield and have a good idea who and how many will probably come. They look at the same studies as we all do and they also have the actual data. As for the economy improved and how it affects people’s income, I do not think it applies to this year’s pool as for most the economic conditions have not increased that drastically.</p>
<p>From a study by Harvard and Stanford professors from 2010 in the “American Economic Review” analyzing early admissions at the top schools.
<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf</a></p>
<p>In1999-2000, at Harvard the yield rate for early admits was 85% vs. 43% for regular admits (from the survey data).</p>
<p>My view is that the yield will be in the 90’s for EA candidates-- but the yield rate will be lower in the RD round than the overall yield rate in prior years. </p>
<p>There are a couple of reasons I can think of which would indicate yield should be lower in regular round -</p>
<p>1) Students whose 1st choice is H are more likely to apply early action. ( In past years they would have just fallen in the regular action group.) This should mean that the regualr action group this year will have a somewhat smaller percentage of accepted students whose 1st choice is Harvard and, therefore, the yield for regular action should go down.</p>
<p>2) Recruited athletes and legacies were more likley to apply early action. If you assume that legacies and recruited athletes have a higher yield than the general admitted population, then the yield should go down in the regular round as well.</p>
<p>My prediction --</p>
<p>EA - Yield is 94% (.94*772=726)
RD - Yield is 70% (.70 * 1260=882)</p>
<p>Total 1608 - so about 50 off the waitlist</p>
<p>Actually Harvard, and the other ivies anticipating the impact of the HP EA accepted many of athletes/URM(20% for H) and other highly coveted students EA so they will have additional time and exclusivity to create a bond for H and court them aggressively. It would not be necessary for H to accept more legacies (except for high donor ones) EA since they would be inclined to choose H. I am just pointing to the URM example only because we have the stats, not for any other reason, as it is a clear example that this tactic by H was successful since they accepted a smaller number of URM in RD. It will be interesting to watch the crossadmits for this year, and if it was released how many were EA.</p>
<p>My D was recruited to another college (with ED) and almost all of her other recruits were like her asked to apply ED. I would tend to agree with Ana1 that most of those that they wish to woo were strongly suggested to apply SCEA-- however, bc they can apply elsewhere in the RD round, they did (again, I have a small personally known “n” but I have been surprised that of the only 6 I know 3 are going to go elsewhere.) I am not saying that that number can or should be extrapolated to the entire SCEA pool, but it is at least a piece of hard data that the only 20 out of 775 or so acceptances will say no (that would mean that of the 769 others only 17 would reject, again while I am not saying my “n” is representative, I am also not saying that it is somehow an outlier either…)</p>
<p>Anyway in 25 days everything will be known.</p>
<p>etondad - is your D in going to college this year?</p>
<p>Yes-- Williams. My S1 is at Harvard, S2 is in 7th grade :-)</p>